Scrypt is still the most popular alt algo.
Sorta ... | 2014-10 | x13
9 | x15
8 | scry
18 | x11
12 | quar
1 | unkn
1 | prim
1 | myri
2 | SHA2
9 | shan
1 | fres
1 | nist
2 | SHA3
1 | prim
1 | BLAK
1 | nxt
3 | Skei
1 | x14
2 | cryp
1 | 3s
1 | | 2014-11 | scry
21 | x13
17 | x11
17 | unkn
2 | x15
4 | SHA2
12 | yesc
1 | mome
1 | x14
1 | nove
1 | scry
1 | | 2014-12 | x11
14 | scry
13 | x13
9 | SHA2
4 | nist
1 | 3s
1 | fres
1 | Whir
1 | mome
1 | myri
1 | cryp
2 | x15
1 | SHA3
1 | | 2015-01 | SHA2
9 | x13
4 | scry
18 | x11
8 | x14
1 | x15
1 | cryp
1 | lyra
1 | | 2015-02 | x11
16 | scry
10 | SHA2
7 | x13
5 | pluc
2 | SHA3
1 | | 2015-03 | SHA2
14 | x11
12 | x13
4 | scry
17 | myri
1 | fres
1 | cryp
1 | qubi
2 | heft
1 | pluc
1 | | 2015-04 | SHA2
5 | scry
11 | x11
9 | x13
2 | nxt
1 | x15
1 |
(stats taken from DOACC entries for altcoin launches by month, rows truncated to last 7 mths, several entries yet to be reflected in 2015-04)Cheers Graham Edit: added description of data |
|
|
|
Posted in another thread, FallingKnife's blueprint for avoiding altcoin failure --- I really cannot endorse this strongly enough: You need a fair start, some transparency, vetted and proven over time not to be a scam.
It should be worth talking about. It needs a message, a story.
It nees a value and belief system.
It needs an undying commitment from a core group who understands the meaning to the core group.
It needs a vocal community, not necessarily a huge community, who believe in it.
It requires some kind of differentiation that sets it a part and make it unique or better in some way.
It takes people who will willingly invest their time talent and energy to promote the cause.
If it's the best anon coin in the world, then find your rabid core believers in privacy.
If it has lowest inflation, find the inflation haters.
If it specifically facilitates a certain activity, find the people who participate in that activity.
It it helps green the planet, then find people who want to do that.
For a coin to succeed, someone has to believe so intensely in it for so long that others will also believe, or find it fun or cool to be connected.
Pure gold. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Damn, this thread is starting to heat up and get addictive. Hopefully, we'll have some servicenode testing in the not too distant future to distract you again  All I've done is bring the published list of SPR developers into line with reality and make people aware that I'm not in a position to commit to being a developer. I'll still be pitching in occasionally but in several areas my perceptions are starting to differ sufficiently from (what I perceive to be) the consensus that it basically renders irrelevant any contribution I might make in that context, so I'm opting to keep my own counsel there. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I don't think the comment about licensing and project liabilities was meant in any negative way.
Me neither. It wasn't a rage quit, I shouldn't really have been on the list in the first place. Originally, I punted some stuff at Mr Spread and he picked some holes in it. palmdetroit cleaned it up and issued a pull which Mr Spread accepted. Hardly rates as “dev” status, so when the dev list was posted including my name, I debated with myself whether I ought to withdraw at that point, decided that such an action could easily be misconstrued as having negative connotations and decided to correct it later when things had settled a bit. Today's reposting reminded me and I gave a ironically self-deprecating reason obliquely referencing the fact that I'd wound up georgem, without actually gaining anything. And I'm not really in a position to devote the time, I'm overdue getting back to documenting DOACC and developing Minkiz content. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
DevsGeorgem gjhigginselbandi Gladimor ( TBC) A-Russo MrSpread (MIA) I seem to be doing more harm than good. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
So how does bitcoin do it? Who is responsible / liable for the gitian-built wallets you can download at bitcoin.org? Isn't the MIT license handling exactly the things you are so afraid of? http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.phpMost important part of this license: "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND"I bow to your superior knowledge. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
As a first step I would be happy if someone could just build linux 32/64bit binaries using gitian, complete with signatures etc...
and create a tutorial / video explaining how he did it.
You're not the only one hoping for a visit from the software fairy. But even so, what you're wishing for won't help anyone much. It's not the process of compiling the linux binaries that typically presents problems, the nightmare is in the identification of the precise population of the architecture- and version-specific support libraries that are required for the successful compilation/execution of Windows and Mac binaries for different versions of the respective OSes/architectures. The process is so involved and time-consuming (typically, days of trial-and-error compilation required) that those who've been consistently successful are obliged to amortize the cost commercially by selling the service. It's not rocket surgery and I'd be quite prepared to take a stab, except that it'd be a week/fortnight's work in return for a grand sum of about $5. It just doesn't make economic sense unless I can amortize the cost in a sustainable way. Those looking to a future for the SPR blockchain have few options: crowdfund a commercial solution or pitch in individually on a volunteer basis either to build OS-specific binaries on their own platforms and find a solution for the distribution and liability issues (the most significant barrier) or fund their generation by a limited-liability commercial service. In short, the collectively-chosen product option does not include support for gitian builds, this is an optional extra with an associated additional cost aimed at providing some liability protection for the publisher from “your binary lost my 3.5 million SPR, you’ll be hearing from my lawyer”. Lots of angles change dramatically when the business plan is taken seriously; volunteers receive scant protection and in consequence are extremely vulnerable to vexatious assumptions of liability. By contrast, those who provide limited-liability commercial solutions are well-protected and vulnerable only to liabilities arising from their own malfeasance. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Thanks for the kind words. I wonder how many of the coins released before GLC are still a going concern.
I've edited the post above to include that info. It's a best guess; there is only one reasonably reliable state and that's “listed on an exchange”. Otherwise, if they're not actually known (or strongly suspected) to be defunct/inactive (same thing, I wavered in my terminology) then they're assumed to be extant. That's likely to produce a lot of false positives but it's a fair price to avoid inadvertently upsetting a coin's community by publishing fud. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
Interestingly, I would think Globalcoin was about the 70th crypto every. Apparently this website, http://cryptodatabase.net/, has 1216 cryptos listed, which would put GLC in the 94th percentile. 1216 is quite low, the current total is running at 2100+. Here's a list of the first 100 coins in “release“ (only the blockchain is definitive) order. Globalcoin makes the cut at 92. There are probably some discrepancies amongst the dates, I haven't checked each and every one against its btctalk page counterpart yet. Cheers Graham Edit: added best guess as to status |
|
|
|
NEM is definitely not based on Nxt.
Thanks for pointing that out, the DOACC datum was from: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=422129.0“NEM :: Descendant of Nxt - NEM - New Economy Movement” The context is “at incept date” and the OP's choice of phrasing (“based on”) is loose, so I chose to be inclusive. I've yet to decide how to/whether to model change in DOACC. For the time being, information on both provenance and changes is modelled informally and separately in a non-RDF scheme that uses the git repository commit structure. I suspect there is only a limited requirement for an explicit modelling of change and right now I'm reluctant to complicate the representation scheme unduly with change data. Maybe address that in the future. It's a list ... but not as you know it, Jim. Cheers Graham ninja edit for clarity |
|
|
|
I want to get a list which coins are based on the original source code of Nxt. All I know is that NAS and Node are based on Nxt. Are there more? Is there a list somewhere?
Yes, there are more and yes, there is a list ... but not as you'd know it, Jim; it can be constructed (see below) from the data in the DOACC RDF graph: https://github.com/DOACC/individualsCheers Graham |
|
|
|
I still don't think Mr. Spread will come back. Why would he?
I find myself entertained to consider that given the convolutions of the DRK->DASH context, the most parsimonious explanation is that Mr Spread was bought off same as Dashcoin's slb. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
